Raamaayana question

[Guest guest]

According to the statement of the Kurma Puraana, it is understood that

Raavana never actually touched Mother Sita. As the story goes, Lakshmana

used his agni-astra to draw a protective circle around the hut where Mother

Sita was. When She crossed it, a curtain of fire appeared and she went to

take shelter in the kingdom of Agnideva. The Sita who emerged from that fire

was a "Maya-Sita," another personality who took the appearance of Sita-devi

so that the pastime of the Raamaayanam could go on. Then when Lord Raama

tried to "test" her chastity, this Maya-Sita went into the flames and the

real Sita emerged (although externally, Lord Raama did not take back Sita

because of concern that she was unchaste, the internal reason was that He

could not take her back because she was not the real Sita. The whole pastime

of asking her to enter the flames then was just to get the real Sita out).

 

What I have heard recently, however, is that the Maya-Sita was not satisfied

with this brief participation in the Lord's pastimes and thus petitioned Him

to give her the boon of having further association with Him. I was told then

that Lord Raama allowed her to become Padmaavathi when He descended as Lord

Venkateshwara.

 

I was wondering if anyone could confirm the above, that the Maya-Sita is the

same as Padmaavathi.

 

Also, can anyone tell me when Lord Venkateshwara was supposed to have

appeared on Earth?

 

thanks in advance,

 

- Krishna Susarla

[Guest guest]

> Krishna Susarla <krishna

> I was wondering if anyone could confirm the above, that the Maya-Sita is

the

> same as Padmaavathi.

>

 

The sthala purAnam of how ThiruvenkatamudayAn came to earth does confirm

the story in question. Indeed, it is said that the Lord used a promise to

"Maya Sita" that he would marry her in remittance for her suffering in

Lanka as the vyAjam to descend to earth. However, Alamelmanga ThayAr is

considered to be part of (amsa) of Sri Herself (as is Maya-Sita), so really

no distinction is made between Sri and Padmavathi among traditional bhaktas

of Srinivasan.

> Also, can anyone tell me when Lord Venkateshwara was supposed to have

> appeared on Earth?

 

I am not sure on this, for there is no mention of a specific time of the

Lord's avathAran in any of the books that I have read. But according to

popular belief, the Lord came to earth soon after the start of kaliyugam

and will remain until the end of it. Perhaps, some of the more erudite

among our group answer this part of the question in more detail.

 

adiyEn,

 

Mohan

[Guest guest]

Let me try to answer your question. My knowledge of Ramayana is from

Tulsidas Ramayana.

 

After bharata and all visit Rama in Chitrakoota and return back. Rama

tells Sita that it is time to separate. He requests Agni devata to

take her in his shelter and protect her. As Sita moves into the shelter

of agni, Maya Sita comes out. About Ravana touching Sita, he does not

even touch Maya Sita. He lifts the very ground she is on and takes her

with him. Raavana has a curse that if he ever forces a married woman, he

will die on the spot.(hence the above of lifting the land).

 

Before Raavana takes Maya Sita away, Rama asks her to ask him for a wish.

To that She replies, that its not enough for me to be Maya Sita, I would

like to be Sriman Narayana's wife. To this Rama replies that in this day

and age, he is Eka Patni Vratudu and hence can't marry her. He also tells

her that she will be born to Aakasha Raja and that he will marry her as

Lord Srinivasa and be with her until the end of Kalyuga. Since he has

promised her that Sriman Narayana has to come to earth again. You are

right when you say that Rama wanted to get his Sita back form Agni, and

hence asked the Maya Sita to take Agni Pariksha. If you read Tulsidas

Ramayana, in it he explains that Sita is not wearing the jewelry that was

given to her in Lanka, but she is wearing the very jewelry that Arundati

gave her.

 

Here is the story behind the second question. When Lakshmi devi and

Sriman Narayana were sitting in Ekantam, he tells his dwarapalakas not to

let anyone enter. Durvasa muni come to the gates and demands that he be

allowed in. When he enters, Sriman Narayana is hit by Durvasa by his foot

in the same spot that Lakshmi resides. Because of this event she gets

upset and leave Sriman Narayana. In search for Lakshmi, he goes after her

to Earth as Srinivasa. Before coming he takes the third eye that Durvasa

has on his foot and makes him realize his mistake. That is how Srinivasa

came to earth.

 

Getting back to the Story of Rama and Sita, here is the reason why they

were separated. Raavana wants to get the Athma Lingam of Shiva and when

he does tapasya, Shiva comes and when asks what Ravana wants, Sriman

Narayana asks Saraswati to sit on Ravana's tongue and make him ask for

some thing else. Raavana asks for Parvati. At this point, Parvati curses

Sriman Narayana that he too will be separated from his wife Lakshmi, then

Narada narates the Ramayana to her. As Lakshmi is following Ravana they

go to the Bhoolokam where Maya Danava's daughter Mandodari lives and

Ravana mistakes her for Lakshmi and marries her.

 

Hopefully I have answered your questions. Let me know if not. This is a

very vast subject and can't be discussed in a small email.

 

Manjula

 

On Tue, 5 May 1998, Krishna Susarla wrote:

> According to the statement of the Kurma Puraana, it is understood that

> Raavana never actually touched Mother Sita. As the story goes, Lakshmana

> used his agni-astra to draw a protective circle around the hut where Mother

> Sita was. When She crossed it, a curtain of fire appeared and she went to

> take shelter in the kingdom of Agnideva. The Sita who emerged from that fire

> was a "Maya-Sita," another personality who took the appearance of Sita-devi

> so that the pastime of the Raamaayanam could go on. Then when Lord Raama

> tried to "test" her chastity, this Maya-Sita went into the flames and the

> real Sita emerged (although externally, Lord Raama did not take back Sita

> because of concern that she was unchaste, the internal reason was that He

> could not take her back because she was not the real Sita. The whole pastime

> of asking her to enter the flames then was just to get the real Sita out).

>

> What I have heard recently, however, is that the Maya-Sita was not satisfied

> with this brief participation in the Lord's pastimes and thus petitioned Him

> to give her the boon of having further association with Him. I was told then

> that Lord Raama allowed her to become Padmaavathi when He descended as Lord

> Venkateshwara.

>

> I was wondering if anyone could confirm the above, that the Maya-Sita is the

> same as Padmaavathi.

>

> Also, can anyone tell me when Lord Venkateshwara was supposed to have

> appeared on Earth?

>

> thanks in advance,

>

> - Krishna Susarla

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

>> I was wondering if anyone could confirm the above, that the Maya-Sita is

the

>> same as Padmaavathi.

>Before Raavana takes Maya Sita away, Rama asks her to ask him for a wish.

>To that She replies, that its not enough for me to be Maya Sita, I would

>like to be Sriman Narayana's wife. To this Rama replies that in this day

>and age, he is Eka Patni Vratudu and hence can't marry her. He also tells

>her that she will be born to Aakasha Raja and that he will marry her as

>Lord Srinivasa and be with her until the end of Kalyuga. Since he has

>promised her that Sriman Narayana has to come to earth again. You are

>right when you say that Rama wanted to get his Sita back form Agni, and

>hence asked the Maya Sita to take Agni Pariksha. If you read Tulsidas

>Ramayana, in it he explains that Sita is not wearing the jewelry that was

>given to her in Lanka, but she is wearing the very jewelry that Arundati

>gave her.

 

 

Hare Krishna! Thanks for confirming that. Now what I want to know is, is

Tulasi-dasa's Raama-charita-manasa the only source of evidence to support

the above, or is there scriptural support for it also?

 

While we're on the subject, I am curious to know about Tulasi-das's

sampradaaya. I had heard that he was initiated into the Shrii Vaishnava

line, but that he may or may not have deviated from that philosophy. I have

also heard that his Raama-charita-manasa contains some elements of advaita

philosophy, but I have not read it so I was wondering how Shrii Vaishnavas

as a whole regard it.

 

yours,

 

-- Krishna Susarla

[Guest guest]

[regarding the mAyA-sIta story]

 

This story does not appear in Srimad Valmiki rAmAyaNam,

neither does it appear in the anubhavam of Alvars or Acharyas,

nor of the great Tamil poet Kamban. It is generally not

accepted in orthodox Sri Vaishnava circles (and among South

Indian vaidikas in general), the kUrma purANa notwithstanding.

 

On a purely stylistic note, if there actually had been a

mAyA-sIta who was abducted instead of the real Sita piraaTTi,

would it not rob the story of a great deal of interest?

 

In fact, the Sri Vaishnava acharyas rely heavily on the "real"

Sita's imprisonment in the Asoka Vana in their anubhavam of

the story of the Lord. The pain and anguish Rama felt at

discovering her loss, the tragedy of the great eagle Jatayu,

the consequent struggle Rama underwent at retrieving his beloved,

the visit of Hanuman, etc., are all dependent on the real Sita

having been abducted by Ravana.

 

Methinks the mAyA-sItA makes the glorious story of Rama

as colorless as the mAyA of advaita makes Vedanta.

 

Mani

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna!

 

Mani Varadarajan <mani

>[regarding the mAyA-sIta story]

>

>This story does not appear in Srimad Valmiki rAmAyaNam,

 

 

That's true, but I don't think it's significant here. Many stories that

ought to be in the Mahaabhaarata are actually found in the Bhaagavatam, and

similarly there are many Raamaayana and Mahaabhaarata stories which took

place in the context of those great epics but nevertheless are chronicled in

other puraaNa-s. This is nothing new.

>neither does it appear in the anubhavam of Alvars or Acharyas,

>nor of the great Tamil poet Kamban. It is generally not

>accepted in orthodox Sri Vaishnava circles (and among South

>Indian vaidikas in general), the kUrma purANa notwithstanding.

>

>On a purely stylistic note, if there actually had been a

>mAyA-sIta who was abducted instead of the real Sita piraaTTi,

>would it not rob the story of a great deal of interest?

 

 

Not really, but that depends on how you look at it. More on that below...

>In fact, the Sri Vaishnava acharyas rely heavily on the "real"

>Sita's imprisonment in the Asoka Vana in their anubhavam of

>the story of the Lord. The pain and anguish Rama felt at

>discovering her loss, the tragedy of the great eagle Jatayu,

>the consequent struggle Rama underwent at retrieving his beloved,

>the visit of Hanuman, etc., are all dependent on the real Sita

>having been abducted by Ravana.

 

Well then I won't find fault with these acharyas for their understanding.

Why should I when I can take the dust from their feet instead?

 

But I will try to explain why other devotees might feel differently, if

anyone is interested in hearing something other than the "interpolation"

hypothesis. I personally do not have a problem with accepting that different

groups of Vaishnavas, each with genuine devotional sentiments, can

understand this pastime in very different ways.

>Methinks the mAyA-sItA makes the glorious story of Rama

>as colorless as the mAyA of advaita makes Vedanta.

>

>Mani

 

 

According to the Gaudiya Vaishnava understanding, Lakshmii (or Siita, or

Raadha, or Rukminii, they're all one and the same personality) is considered

to be the personified hlaadini-shakti (pleasure potency) of Lord Krishna.

Thus, while many devotees of the Lord may be great and eternally liberated,

Lakshmii is still in a distinct class because she can never be separated

from Her Lord in as much as you cannot separate sunshine from the sun.

Wherever the Lord is, His pleasure potency is there also. Thus the idea of

Raavana kidnapping the Lord's pleasure potency is highly dubious at best.

This is also the case because a liberated person, whose body is spiritual,

cannot be apprehended by material means. As the shruti says:

 

na sa.mdR^ishe tiShThati ruupam asya na chakShuShaa pashyati kashchanainam |

hR^idaa maniiShaa manasaabhikL^ipto ya etad vidur amR^itaas te bhavanti ||

KU 2.3.9 ||

 

Spirit is not within the jurisdiction of material eyes, words, or mind

(kaTha upaniShad 2.3.9).

 

Something similar is also stated in the Bhaagavatam, though in this case in

reference to Lord Krishna:

 

sa eSha bhagavaalli.ngaistribhiretairadhokShajaH |

svalakShitagatirbrahman sarveShaa.m mama cheshvaraH || Bhaa P 2.5.20 ||

 

saH - He; eShaH - this; bhagavaan - the Personality of Godhead; li.ngaiH -

by the symptoms; tribhiH - by the three; etaiH - by all these; adhokShajaH -

the Superseer Transcendence; su-alakShita - veritably unseen; gatiH -

movement; brahman - O Naarada; sarveShaam - of everyone; mama - mine; cha -

as also; iishvaraH - the controller.

 

O BraahmaNa Naarada, the Superseer, the transcendent Lord, is beyond the

perception of the material senses of the living entities because of the

above-mentioned three modes of nature. But He is the controller of everyone,

including me.

 

As Siita and Raama are thus to be considered of the same nature (in other

words, both are transcendental, they do not posess material bodies), it is

not possible for Raavana or any materially-conditioned being to harm either

of them. The idea of Raavana even touching Mother Siita is simply rejected

by Gaudiiya Vaishnavas for the very reason that she is the Pleasure Potency

of the Lord, and simply cannot be removed from Him by any means.

 

Actually the whole story of how this point was settled is very interesting.

Shrii Chaitanya met with a very austere brahmin named Raamadaasa Vipraa who

was also a Raama-bhakta. This great devotee of Lord Raama wanted to fast

until death out of grief because he was troubled by the idea of Mother

Siitaa being touched by the demon Raavana. Shrii Chaitanya then took great

compassion on him, and tried to convince him that this was not the case,

citing the Katha Upanishad verse above as an explanation as to why a demonic

being could never touch the Goddess of Fortune. After consoling him thus,

Mahaaprabhu traveled to Rameshvara where He heard the brahmins there

discussing the Kuurma PuraaNa, especially the excerpt in which Siita-devi's

story was mentioned. In this puraaNa it is stated:

 

siitayaaraadhito vahnish chaayaasiitaam ajiijanat |

taa.m jahaara dashagriivaH siitaa vahnipura.m gataa ||

pariikShaasamaye vahni.m chaayaasiitaa vivesha saa |

vahniH siitaa.m samaaniiya tatpurastaad aniinayat ||

 

siitayaa - by mother Siitaa; araadhitaH - being called for; vahniH - the

fire-god; chaayaa-siitaam - the illusory form of mother Siitaa; ajiijanat -

created; taam - her; jahaara - kidnaped; dasha-griivaH - the ten-faced

RaavaNa; siitaa - mother Siitaa; vahni-puram - the the abode of the

fire-god; gataa - departed; pariikShaa-samaye - at the time of testing;

vahnim - the fire; chaayaa-siitaa - the illusory form of Siitaa; vivesha -

entered; saa - she; vahniH - the fire-god; siitaam - the original mother

Siitaa; samaaniiya - bringing back; tat-purustaat - in His presence;

aniinayat - brought back.

 

When he was petitioned by mother Siitaa, the fire-god, Agni, brought forth

an illusory form of Siitaa, and RaavaNa, who had ten heads, kidnapped the

false Siitaa. The original Siitaa then went to the abode of the fire-god.

When Lord Raamachandra tested the body of Siitaa, it was the false illusory

Siitaa that entered the fire. At that time the fire-god brought the original

Siitaa from his abode and delivered her to Lord Raamachandra (kuurma

puraaNa).

 

Shrii Chaitanya Mahaaprabhu then took posession of these scrolls and

delivered them to Raamadaasa Vipra, who was very pleased and shed tears of

joy in receiving them.

 

Of course, Shrii Chaitanya Himself praised the love of Lord Krishna in

(physical) separation as being topmost, specifically in reference to the

Gopika-s who continued to meditate on Lord Krishna in spite of His apparent

absence from Vrindaavan. So I can also see how the same principle might be

used by other Vaishnavas to explain the emotional grief and anxiety Lord

Raama and Mother Siita displayed in Raamaayana due to their apparent

separation. Again, I'm not trying to cast doubts on the explanations you

mentioned as being the ones offered by Shrii Vaishnava aachaaryas, so please

don't take it that way.

 

BTW, in reference to the Sthala Puraana which Sri Mohan Sagar brought up, am

I to understand that Shrii Vaishnavas do not consider these to be

authoritative references and hence reject the story mentioned about the

Maya-Sita and how she later became Padmaavathi?

 

yours,

 

-- HKS

[Guest guest]

gopalram <gopalram

>

>I also heard something similar from a Sri Vaishnava devotee that

>Ravana could never actually touch Sita as She was protected by Agni

>deva.

>So Ravana cleverly scooped up earth underneath and around where Sita was

>standing.

>Members could authenticate this version of the story.

 

 

I think the last part is either from Tulasi dasa' Rama-charita-manasa (the

so-called Tulasi das Ramayana) or it was what Ravana did after his vehicle

was destroyed by Jataayu.

 

Parthasarati Dileepan <Dileepan

>I have a question about Maya Sita.

>

>According to Sri vaishnava tradition Trijadai's surrendered to Sita Piratti

>and Piratti granted mOksha for her and her cohorts. If the SIta in Ashoka

>Vanam was a Maya Sita how can this episode be explained?

 

If that Maya Sita was in fact an amsha of the real Sita (as one devotee here

stated), then this would not be hard to believe. Then again, I'm still

curious as to why a Maya Sita who is actually an amsha of Sita would take

Sita's place when the issue is that Sita cannot be separated from Rama, etc.

I think I will try to look up Ramayanam to see what is stated there about

Ravana touching Sita, etc.

 

yours,

 

-- HKS